The story just run in the Sunday Telegraph, (see the story below my comments) is reminiscent of stories run before the United States bombed Iraq in 1990, 2003 and of course Serbia before that. So this story is largely about planting "obvious" facts in our minds. "There are 2000 targets." that is the message. So they expect us to understand that these are targets for an as of yet really undiscussed war. If they get us to accept the idea that there are already 2000 Iranian targets then we almost have to accept the idea of a war with Iran even though there has been next to nothing of a credible discussion about such another insane act of aggression. In short, by establishing the targets,inevitable war is almost assumed.
Of course they will never call it aggression and even if they use nuclear weapons they will not admit it is terror. They will be protecting us from some sort of overblown "threat" and generously congratulate themselves as the great benefators of the Iranians as they rain death upon them.
Will we sing "God Bless America" as our government and in a sense we all commit this crime, again?
So is this Sunday Times article a report on U.S. war plans or part of those war plans? Planting war plans in the foreign press so it filters back to the States for all the good little journalists and congresspeople to accept as the "obvious" truth. The fact that these war plans come from the British and American governments is somehow lost in the muddle.
Targets exist, targets exist we chant
Targets exist, targets exist we pant
Targets exist in Iraq, we clap
Targets exist in Iran, we hold up our hand
Bombs away, brother!
Bombs away, sister!
Someone will die to be sure but we don't care.
This time death will be only from the sky.
It's not a U.S bomber it's a blessing flying by.
See you on the shattered streets of Baghdad, Tehran and New York City
Shattered because of all this stupid shit
Because we say, "TARGETS, THEY DO EXIST!"
Congress doesn't want the truth it wants to get reelected and right now they are in this crazy zionist war on everyone mentality, the neocon types. This is not to neglect the fact that most Jews and zionists probably think an attack on Iran is crazy.
Why we continue to let the super-crazed ultra religious or ultra violent zionist types, why we let them hold sway is beyond my understanding. It never has made any real sense whatever the emotional appeal some of these people make. I think these people see an endless war with their neighbors and they want the United States to have a similar dilemma.
Its sad to see so little sanity in the White House, Congress or the Supreme Court. I am primarily trying to clarify my own thoughts.
Hopefully war with Iran will be derailed, but it is on the rails now. It is on the rails now and consists of a gaggle of creatures where vanity competes for supremacy only with mendacity and mendacity only with larceny or at least larceny's cousin. Congress has abdicated its role as a separate branch of government.
Later a few Congress people will excuse themselves for being ignoramuses and fools but will portray their egregious, self-satisfied and clueless ignorance as something equivalent to the innocence of cherubs. They think they can get away with it because the political system is so corrupt no one from the people ever gets into politics. It's all a bunch of professional yes-men, religious zealots and lobbyists. Big money seems to run the show so I guess big money wants to nuke Iraq or do something equivalent to dropping several Hiroshima sized bombs on it.
The United States once used nuclear weapons to terrorize the world. That was when they
bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I think that the American leadership as presently constituted may be persuaded to the view that another terroristic demonstration of just what the United States means when it insists on having its own way. Yes, while beguiling far too many Americans with fears about "mushroom clouds" the grandiosity in chief along with his youthful protege, the President, will puff a few mushroom clouds of their own.
Attacks on Iran, nuclear or not may trigger a police state here at home. I wonder what the Bush regime will do if there is another terrorist attack on American soil. Will they declare a national emergency and take over the whole government.
Will Congress do anything independent? Recent history suggests otherwise.
But if Bush wants to shut down the 2008 elections and remain our savior until the period of national emergency is over blowing up a lot of Iran sounds like a plan for
a full coup.
I don't see anyone in the ruling circles saying hands off Iraq although some have, I think more peacefully, suggested working with Iran and the other local powers. But is anyone really going to limit G. W.'s Napoleonic impulses?
Published on Sunday, September 16, 2007 by the Sunday Telegraph/UK
Bush Setting America Up for War on Iran
by Philip Sherwell in New York and Tim Shipman in Washington
Senior American intelligence and defense officials believe that President George W Bush and his inner circle are taking steps to place America on the path to war with Iran, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt.
Pentagon planners have developed a list of up to 2,000 bombing targets in Iran, amid growing fears among serving officers that diplomatic efforts to slow Iran’s nuclear weapons program are doomed to fail.
Pentagon and CIA officers say they believe that the White House has begun a carefully calibrated program of escalation that could lead to a military showdown with Iran.
Now it has emerged that Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, who has been pushing for a diplomatic solution, is prepared to settle her differences with Vice-President Dick Cheney and sanction military action.
In a chilling scenario of how war might come, a senior intelligence officer warned that public denunciation of Iranian meddling in Iraq - arming and training militants - would lead to cross border raids on Iranian training camps and bomb factories.
A prime target would be the Fajr base run by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Quds Force in southern Iran, where Western intelligence agencies say armor-piercing projectiles used against British and US troops are manufactured.
Under the theory - which is gaining credence in Washington security circles - US action would provoke a major Iranian response, perhaps in the form of moves to cut off Gulf oil supplies, providing a trigger for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities and even its armed forces.
Senior officials believe Mr Bush’s inner circle has decided he does not want to leave office without first ensuring that Iran is not capable of developing a nuclear weapon.
The intelligence source said: “No one outside that tight circle knows what is going to happen.” But he said that within the CIA “many if not most officials believe that diplomacy is failing” and that “top Pentagon brass believes the same”.
He said: “A strike will probably follow a gradual escalation. Over the next few weeks and months the US will build tensions and evidence around Iranian activities in Iraq.”
Previously, accusations that Mr Bush was set on war with Iran have come almost entirely from his critics.
Many senior operatives within the CIA are highly critical of Mr Bush’s handling of the Iraq war, though they themselves are considered ineffective and unreliable by hardliners close to Mr Cheney.
The vice president is said to advocate the use of bunker-busting tactical nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear sites. His allies dispute this, but Mr Cheney is understood to be lobbying for air strikes if sites can be identified where Revolutionary Guard units are training Shia militias.
Recent developments over Iraq appear to fit with the pattern of escalation predicted by Pentagon officials.
Gen David Petraeus, Mr Bush’s senior Iraq commander, denounced the Iranian “proxy war” in Iraq last week as he built support in Washington for the US military surge in Baghdad.
The US also announced the creation of a new base near the Iraqi border town of Badra, the first of what could be several locations to tackle the smuggling of weapons from Iran.
A State Department source familiar with White House discussions said that Miss Rice, under pressure from senior counter-proliferation officials to acknowledge that military action may be necessary, is now working with Mr Cheney to find a way to reconcile their positions and present a united front to the President.
The source said: “When you go down there and see the body language, you can see that Cheney is still The Man. Condi pushed for diplomacy but she is no dove. If it becomes necessary she will be on board.
“Both of them are very close to the president, and where they differ they are working together to find a way to present a position they can both live with.”
The official contrasted the efforts of the secretary of state to work with the vice-president with the “open warfare between Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld before the Iraq war”.
Miss Rice’s bottom line is that if the administration is to go to war again it must build the case over a period of months and win sufficient support on Capitol Hill.
The Sunday Telegraph has been told that Mr Bush has privately promised her that he would consult “meaningfully” with Congressional leaders of both parties before any military action against Iran on the understanding that Miss Rice would resign if this did not happen.
The intelligence officer said that the US military has “two major contingency plans” for air strikes on Iran.
“One is to bomb only the nuclear facilities. The second option is for a much bigger strike that would - over two or three days - hit all of the significant military sites as well. This plan involves more than 2,000 targets.”
Copyright 2007 Telegraph Media Group Limited
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Sunday, September 16, 2007
SO CALLED NEWS ASSUMES ATTACKS ON IRAN VIRUTALLY INEVITABLE
It really sucks to see the one and only supper power prepare to destroy yet another nation. Iraq has been converted into a
cauldron of warring factions and one to two million dead Iraqis during the most recent era of United States beneficence. Now Iran, once the fortunate beneficiary of an Anglo-American imposed dictator, the shah of iran, broke out from under their domination in 1979-80.
Unfortunately the Iranian revolution went islamic. Still, that is no reason to invade Iran. There is no good reason to invade Iran but there will be a lot of lies. The big propaganda now being that such a war is inevitable, the inevitable result of Iranians not being something the thugs in the White House say they ought to be.
So the United States has created something like a failed state or a mega-Lebanon in Iraq. This is nothing to boast about but
General Petraeus and his Commander-in-Chief like happy talk. They tell us happy stories while Mr. Bush hopes to distract from the
debacle by creating another war. This time the scenario will be more absurd and surreal than the last brutal invasion.
So is the French government going to be one of the diplomatic enablers of the war against Iran? Or is this a story that distorts the French position? I don't know. Clearly phrases like "right to the end" suggest an inevitable outcome.
I think the bombardment of Iran would be a crime very much like the recent invasion of Iraq, a crime that breaks the peace and
carries out crimes against the population of Iran. What is the United States going to do now, reduce another advanced muslim country to rubble?
Obviously Bush/Cheney should be prevented from committing these crimes. Impeachment might trim their authority and sideline their ambitions to make another imperialist war. Are those who oppose impeachment telling us they want this war?
If Congress allows yet another war of aggression to go forward then it is difficult to point to any part of the Federal Government that represents the interests of the American people.
BBC NEWS
France warning of war with Iran
French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.
Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".
Iran has consistently denied it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons but intends to carry on enriching uranium.
Mr Kouchner also said a number of large French companies had been asked not to tender for business in Iran.
EU sanctions
"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies."
"But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."
He said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran.
"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.
Until now the Security Council of the United Nations has imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but did not allow for military action.
The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6997935.stm
Published: 2007/09/16 19:29:25 GMT
© BBC MMVII
cauldron of warring factions and one to two million dead Iraqis during the most recent era of United States beneficence. Now Iran, once the fortunate beneficiary of an Anglo-American imposed dictator, the shah of iran, broke out from under their domination in 1979-80.
Unfortunately the Iranian revolution went islamic. Still, that is no reason to invade Iran. There is no good reason to invade Iran but there will be a lot of lies. The big propaganda now being that such a war is inevitable, the inevitable result of Iranians not being something the thugs in the White House say they ought to be.
So the United States has created something like a failed state or a mega-Lebanon in Iraq. This is nothing to boast about but
General Petraeus and his Commander-in-Chief like happy talk. They tell us happy stories while Mr. Bush hopes to distract from the
debacle by creating another war. This time the scenario will be more absurd and surreal than the last brutal invasion.
So is the French government going to be one of the diplomatic enablers of the war against Iran? Or is this a story that distorts the French position? I don't know. Clearly phrases like "right to the end" suggest an inevitable outcome.
I think the bombardment of Iran would be a crime very much like the recent invasion of Iraq, a crime that breaks the peace and
carries out crimes against the population of Iran. What is the United States going to do now, reduce another advanced muslim country to rubble?
Obviously Bush/Cheney should be prevented from committing these crimes. Impeachment might trim their authority and sideline their ambitions to make another imperialist war. Are those who oppose impeachment telling us they want this war?
If Congress allows yet another war of aggression to go forward then it is difficult to point to any part of the Federal Government that represents the interests of the American people.
BBC NEWS
France warning of war with Iran
French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner says the world should prepare for war over Iran's nuclear programme.
"We have to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war," Mr Kouchner said in an interview on French TV and radio.
Mr Kouchner said negotiations with Iran should continue "right to the end", but an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose "a real danger for the whole world".
Iran has consistently denied it is trying to acquire nuclear weapons but intends to carry on enriching uranium.
Mr Kouchner also said a number of large French companies had been asked not to tender for business in Iran.
EU sanctions
"We are not banning French companies from submitting. We have advised them not to. These are private companies."
"But I think that it has been heard and we are not the only ones to have done this."
He said France wanted the European Union to prepare sanctions against Iran.
"We have decided that while negotiations are continuing to prepare eventual sanctions outside the ambit of UN sanctions. Our good friends, the Germans, suggested that," he said.
Until now the Security Council of the United Nations has imposed economic sanctions on Iran, but did not allow for military action.
The United States has not ruled out a military attack against Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/6997935.stm
Published: 2007/09/16 19:29:25 GMT
© BBC MMVII
Friday, September 7, 2007
IMPEACHMENT
It seems to me that those congressional representatives and senators who are not endorsing impeachment
are leaving open the door to endorsing more Bush led insanity. In particular I wonder how many Democrats are
eager to nuke Iran even if they are unwilling to say so publicly?
It leads one back to the concern that we always have about real world Democrats, are they really any different
than Republicans, self-righteous war mongers? And if they are both hopeless, war mongering until their graves, then
how can we support either one? They all need to be overthrown and since they don't do much of anything to represent
us we will be way ahead when we replace them and the rotten status quo with something more representative, more con-
structive and more worthwhile for all but the war makers and the exploiters who love them.
are leaving open the door to endorsing more Bush led insanity. In particular I wonder how many Democrats are
eager to nuke Iran even if they are unwilling to say so publicly?
It leads one back to the concern that we always have about real world Democrats, are they really any different
than Republicans, self-righteous war mongers? And if they are both hopeless, war mongering until their graves, then
how can we support either one? They all need to be overthrown and since they don't do much of anything to represent
us we will be way ahead when we replace them and the rotten status quo with something more representative, more con-
structive and more worthwhile for all but the war makers and the exploiters who love them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
